Search (87 results, page 1 of 5)

0.07486111 = product of:
  0.14972222 = sum of:
    0.020873476 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 554) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020873476 = score(doc=554,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 554, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=554)
    0.021389665 = weight(_text_:use in 554) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021389665 = score(doc=554,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.1691581 = fieldWeight in 554, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=554)
    0.02011309 = weight(_text_:of in 554) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02011309 = score(doc=554,freq=26.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.31146988 = fieldWeight in 554, product of:
          5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
            26.0 = termFreq=26.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=554)
    0.087345995 = sum of:
      0.015606222 = weight(_text_:on in 554) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.015606222 = score(doc=554,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041294612 = queryNorm
          0.1718293 = fieldWeight in 554, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=554)
      0.07173977 = weight(_text_:line in 554) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07173977 = score(doc=554,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23157367 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041294612 = queryNorm
          0.30979243 = fieldWeight in 554, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=554)
  0.5 = coord(4/8)

Abstract

The development of regional on-line catalogs and in-house information systems for retrieval of references provide examples of the impact of indexing theory and applications on technical processing. More emphasis must be given to understanding the techniques for evaluating the effectiveness of a file, irrespective of whether that file was created as a library catalog or an index to information sources. The most significant advances in classification theory in recent decades has been as a result of efforts to improve effectiveness of indexing systems. Library classification systems are indexing languages or systems. Courses offered for the preparation of indexers in the United States and the United Kingdom are reviewed. A point of congruence for both the indexer and the library classifier would appear to be the need for a thorough preparation in the techniques of subject analysis. Any subject heading list will suffer from omissions as well as the inclusion of terms which the patron will never use. Indexing theory has provided the technical services department with methods for evaluation of effectiveness. The writer does not believe that these techniques are used, nor do current courses, workshops, and continuing education programs stress them. When theory is totally subjugated to practice, critical thinking and maximum effectiveness will suffer.

0.059102576 = product of:
  0.11820515 = sum of:
    0.058445733 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4526) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.058445733 = score(doc=4526,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.46789268 = fieldWeight in 4526, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4526)
    0.029945528 = weight(_text_:use in 4526) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029945528 = score(doc=4526,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.23682132 = fieldWeight in 4526, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4526)
    0.022089208 = weight(_text_:of in 4526) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022089208 = score(doc=4526,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.34207192 = fieldWeight in 4526, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4526)
    0.007724685 = product of:
      0.01544937 = sum of:
        0.01544937 = weight(_text_:on in 4526) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01544937 = score(doc=4526,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.17010231 = fieldWeight in 4526, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4526)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(4/8)

Abstract

Reports results of a study of 2 information retrieval systems on a 2.000 document full text medical database. The first system, SAPHIRE, features concept based automatic indexing and statistical retrieval techniques, while the second system, SWORD, features traditional word based Boolean techniques, 16 medical students at Oregon Health Sciences Univ. each performed 10 searches and their results, recorded in terms of recall and precision, showed nearly equal performance for both systems. SAPHIRE was also compared with a version of SWORD modified to use automatic indexing and ranked retrieval. Using batch input of queries, the latter method performed slightly better

Source

Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the American Society for Information Science, Pittsburgh, 26.-29.10.92. Ed.: D. Shaw

0.0567895 = product of:
  0.113579 = sum of:
    0.058445733 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2289) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.058445733 = score(doc=2289,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.46789268 = fieldWeight in 2289, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2289)
    0.029945528 = weight(_text_:use in 2289) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029945528 = score(doc=2289,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.23682132 = fieldWeight in 2289, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2289)
    0.017463053 = weight(_text_:of in 2289) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017463053 = score(doc=2289,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.2704316 = fieldWeight in 2289, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2289)
    0.007724685 = product of:
      0.01544937 = sum of:
        0.01544937 = weight(_text_:on in 2289) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01544937 = score(doc=2289,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.17010231 = fieldWeight in 2289, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2289)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(4/8)

Abstract

The wealth of chemical information on the INSPEC database is easily retrieved using the printed subject indexes to the associated abstract journals. However, this subject indexing is insufficient for machine retrieval, and free-text searching has special difficulties. An easy-to-use retrieval system has been developed which overcomes many problems, especially the retrieval of non-stoichiometric compositions, which are a feature solid-state chemistry. The scheme is limited to inorganic material, but allows flexibility and identification of dopants, interfaces and surfaces or substrates. At the same time, a system has been introduced for the online retrieval of numerical data included in the data base. This has successfully standardized the way in which such data is held for searching, enabling further refinement of searches where numerical information is significant

0.05296962 = product of:
  0.10593924 = sum of:
    0.04174695 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 7151) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04174695 = score(doc=7151,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.33420905 = fieldWeight in 7151, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=7151)
    0.030249555 = weight(_text_:use in 7151) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030249555 = score(doc=7151,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.23922569 = fieldWeight in 7151, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=7151)
    0.021604925 = weight(_text_:of in 7151) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021604925 = score(doc=7151,freq=30.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.33457235 = fieldWeight in 7151, product of:
          5.477226 = tf(freq=30.0), with freq of:
            30.0 = termFreq=30.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=7151)
    0.012337802 = product of:
      0.024675604 = sum of:
        0.024675604 = weight(_text_:on in 7151) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024675604 = score(doc=7151,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.271686 = fieldWeight in 7151, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=7151)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(4/8)

Abstract

This article revisits the debate concerning controlled and natural indexing languages, as used in searching the databases of the online hosts, in-house information retrieval systems, online public access catalogues and databases stored on CD-ROM. The debate was first formulated in the early days of information retrieval more than a century ago but, despite significant advance in technology, remains unresolved. The article divides the history of the debate into four eras. Era one was characterised by the introduction of controlled vocabulary. Era two focused on comparisons between different indexing languages in order to assess which was best. Era three saw a number of case studies of limited generalisability and a general recognition that the best search performance can be achieved by the parallel use of the two types of indexing languages. The emphasis in Era four has been on the development of end-user-based systems, including online public access catalogues and databases on CD-ROM. Recent developments in the use of expert systems techniques to support the representation of meaning may lead to systems which offer significant support to the user in end-user searching. In the meantime, however, information retrieval in practice involves a mixture of natural and controlled indexing languages used to search a wide variety of different kinds of databases

Source

Journal of information science. 20(1994) no.2, S.108-119

0.049023453 = product of:
  0.09804691 = sum of:
    0.029222867 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 6941) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029222867 = score(doc=6941,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.23394634 = fieldWeight in 6941, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6941)
    0.029945528 = weight(_text_:use in 6941) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029945528 = score(doc=6941,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.23682132 = fieldWeight in 6941, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6941)
    0.02342914 = weight(_text_:of in 6941) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02342914 = score(doc=6941,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.36282203 = fieldWeight in 6941, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6941)
    0.01544937 = product of:
      0.03089874 = sum of:
        0.03089874 = weight(_text_:on in 6941) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03089874 = score(doc=6941,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.34020463 = fieldWeight in 6941, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6941)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(4/8)

Abstract

Explores the question of whether academic libraries keep up with the changes in the LCSH system. Analysis of the handling of 15 subject headings in 50 academic library catalogues available via the Internet found that libraries are not consistently maintaining subject authority control, or making syndetic references and scope notes in their catalogues. Discusses the results from the perspective of the libraries' performance, performance on the headings overall, performance on references, performance on the type of change made to the headings,a nd performance within 3 widely used onlien catalogue systems (DRA, INNOPAC and NOTIS). Discusses the implications of the findings in relationship to expressions of dissatisfaction with the effectiveness of subject cataloguing expressed by discussion groups on the Internet

Theme

Verbale Doksprachen im Online-Retrieval

0.04632821 = product of:
  0.09265642 = sum of:
    0.035423465 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2638) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035423465 = score(doc=2638,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.2835858 = fieldWeight in 2638, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2638)
    0.025667597 = weight(_text_:use in 2638) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025667597 = score(doc=2638,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.20298971 = fieldWeight in 2638, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2638)
    0.022201622 = weight(_text_:of in 2638) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022201622 = score(doc=2638,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.34381276 = fieldWeight in 2638, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2638)
    0.009363732 = product of:
      0.018727465 = sum of:
        0.018727465 = weight(_text_:on in 2638) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018727465 = score(doc=2638,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.20619515 = fieldWeight in 2638, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2638)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(4/8)

Abstract

Studies the quality of subject indexing by Chemical Abstracts Indexing Service by confronting authors with the particular indexing terms attributed to their computer, for 270 articles published in 54 journals, 5 articles out of each journal. Responses (80%) indicate the superior quality of keywords, both as content descriptors and as retrieval tools. Author judgements on these 2 different aspects do not always converge, however. CAS's indexing policy to cover only 'new' aspects is reflected in author's judgements that index lists are somewhat incomplete, in particular in the case of thesaurus terms (index headings). The large effort expanded by CAS in maintaining and using a subject thesuaurs, in order to select valid index headings, as compared to quick and cheap keyword postings, does not lead to clear superior quality of thesaurus terms for document description nor in retrieval. Some 20% of papers were not placed in 'proper' CA main section, according to authors. As concerns the use of indexing data by third parties, in bibliometrics, users should be aware of the indexing policies behind the data, in order to prevent invalid interpretations

Source

Journal of information science. 18(1992) no.5, S.399-408

0.04557497 = product of:
  0.12153325 = sum of:
    0.082654744 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 579) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.082654744 = score(doc=579,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.6617001 = fieldWeight in 579, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=579)
    0.02342914 = weight(_text_:of in 579) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02342914 = score(doc=579,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.36282203 = fieldWeight in 579, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=579)
    0.01544937 = product of:
      0.03089874 = sum of:
        0.03089874 = weight(_text_:on in 579) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03089874 = score(doc=579,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.34020463 = fieldWeight in 579, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=579)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)

Abstract

This article presents a logical analysis of the characteristics of indexing and their effects on retrieval performance.It establishes the ability to ask the questions one needs to ask as the foundation of performance evaluation, and recall and discrimination as the basic quantitative performance measures for binary noninteractive retrieval systems. It then defines the characteristics of indexing that affect retrieval - namely, indexing devices, viewpoint-based and importance-based indexing exhaustivity, indexing specifity, indexing correctness, and indexing consistency - and examines in detail their effects on retrieval. It concludes that retrieval performance depends chiefly on the match between indexing and the requirements of the individual query and on the adaption of the query formulation to the characteristics of the retrieval system, and that the ensuing complexity must be considered in the design and testing of retrieval systems

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 45(1994) no.8, S.589-599

0.04087518 = product of:
  0.16350073 = sum of:
    0.017850775 = weight(_text_:of in 7247) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017850775 = score(doc=7247,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.27643585 = fieldWeight in 7247, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7247)
    0.14564995 = sum of:
      0.10089115 = weight(_text_:computers in 7247) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.10089115 = score(doc=7247,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.21710795 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.257537 = idf(docFreq=625, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041294612 = queryNorm
          0.464705 = fieldWeight in 7247, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.257537 = idf(docFreq=625, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7247)
      0.0447588 = weight(_text_:22 in 7247) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0447588 = score(doc=7247,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1446067 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041294612 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 7247, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7247)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

Describes an experiment comparing the performance of automatic full-text indexing software for personal computers with the human intellectual assignment of indexing terms in each document in a collection. Considers the times required to index the document, to retrieve documents satisfying 5 typical foreseen information needs, and the recall and precision ratios of searching. The software used is QuickFinder facility in WordPerfect 6.1 for Windows

Source

Canadian journal of information and library science. 21(1996) no.2, S.1-22

0.03278322 = product of:
  0.087421924 = sum of:
    0.058445733 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4028) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.058445733 = score(doc=4028,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.46789268 = fieldWeight in 4028, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4028)
    0.013526822 = weight(_text_:of in 4028) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013526822 = score(doc=4028,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.20947541 = fieldWeight in 4028, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4028)
    0.01544937 = product of:
      0.03089874 = sum of:
        0.03089874 = weight(_text_:on in 4028) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03089874 = score(doc=4028,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.34020463 = fieldWeight in 4028, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4028)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)

Abstract

Reports on an analysis of lexical ambiguity in information retrieval text collections and on experiments to determine the utility of word meanings for separating relevant from nonrelevant documents. Results show that there is considerable ambiguity even in a specialised database. Word senses provide a significant separation between relevant and nonrelevant documents, but several factors contribute to determining whether disambiguation will make an improvement in performance such as: resolving lexical ambiguity was found to have little impact on retrieval effectiveness for documents that have many words in common with the query. Discusses other uses of word sense disambiguation in an information retrieval context

Source

ACM transactions on information systems. 10(1992) no.2, S.115-141

0.03124749 = product of:
  0.08332664 = sum of:
    0.013526822 = weight(_text_:of in 3510) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013526822 = score(doc=3510,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.20947541 = fieldWeight in 3510, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3510)
    0.05021784 = product of:
      0.10043568 = sum of:
        0.10043568 = weight(_text_:line in 3510) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10043568 = score(doc=3510,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23157367 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.4337094 = fieldWeight in 3510, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3510)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.019581974 = product of:
      0.039163947 = sum of:
        0.039163947 = weight(_text_:22 in 3510) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.039163947 = score(doc=3510,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1446067 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3510, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3510)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)

Abstract

A known-item search for abstracts to previously retrieved references revealed that 2 documents from the same annual volume had been indexed twice. Working from the premise that the whole volume may have been double-indexed, a search strategy was devised that limited the journal code to the year in question. 57 references were retrieved, comprising 28 pairs of duplicates plus a citation for the whole volume. Author, title, source and descriptors were requested off-line and the citations were paired with their duplicates. The 4 categories of descriptors-major descriptors, minor descriptors, subheadings and check-tags-were compared for depth and consistency of indexing and lessons that might be learnt from the study are discussed.

Source

Health libraries review. 7(1990) no.1, S.22-26

0.031171823 = product of:
  0.08312486 = sum of:
    0.050615493 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2287) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.050615493 = score(doc=2287,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.40520695 = fieldWeight in 2287, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2287)
    0.019129815 = weight(_text_:of in 2287) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019129815 = score(doc=2287,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.29624295 = fieldWeight in 2287, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2287)
    0.013379549 = product of:
      0.026759097 = sum of:
        0.026759097 = weight(_text_:on in 2287) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026759097 = score(doc=2287,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.29462588 = fieldWeight in 2287, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2287)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)

Abstract

The depth of indexing, the number of terms assigned on average to each document in a retrieval system as entry points, has a significantly effect on the standard retrieval performance measures in modern commercial retrieval systems, just as it did in previous experimental work. Tests on the effect of basic index search, as opposed to controlled vocabulary search, in these real systems are quite different than traditional comparisons of free text searching with controlled vocabulary searching. In modern commercial systems the controlled vocabulary serves as a precision device, since the strucure of the default for unqualified search terms in these systems requires that it do so.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 40(1989), S.273-276

0.030324634 = product of:
  0.08086569 = sum of:
    0.05600942 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5262) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05600942 = score(doc=5262,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.44838852 = fieldWeight in 5262, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5262)
    0.013388081 = weight(_text_:of in 5262) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013388081 = score(doc=5262,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.20732689 = fieldWeight in 5262, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5262)
    0.011468184 = product of:
      0.022936368 = sum of:
        0.022936368 = weight(_text_:on in 5262) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022936368 = score(doc=5262,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.25253648 = fieldWeight in 5262, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5262)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)

Abstract

The study was based on the collection examnined by W.H. Shaw (Inf. proc. man. 26(1990) no.6, S.693-703, 705-718), a test collection of 1239 articles, indexed with the term cystic fibrosis; and 100 queries with 3 sets of relevance evaluations from subject experts. The effect of variations in indexing exhaustivity on retrieval performance in a vector space retrieval system was investigated by using a term weight threshold to construct different document representations for a test collection. Retrieval results showed that retrieval performance, as measured by the mean optimal measure for all queries at a term weight threshold, was highest at the most exhaustive representation, and decreased slightly as terms were eliminated and the indexing representation became less exhaustive. The findings suggest that the vector space model is more robust against variations in indexing exhaustivity that is the single-link clustering model

0.030251123 = product of:
  0.080669664 = sum of:
    0.050615493 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1830) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.050615493 = score(doc=1830,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.40520695 = fieldWeight in 1830, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1830)
    0.019129815 = weight(_text_:of in 1830) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019129815 = score(doc=1830,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.29624295 = fieldWeight in 1830, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1830)
    0.010924355 = product of:
      0.02184871 = sum of:
        0.02184871 = weight(_text_:on in 1830) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02184871 = score(doc=1830,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.24056101 = fieldWeight in 1830, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1830)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)

Abstract

Automatic keyword extraction is an important and fundamental technology in an advanced information retrieval systems. Briefly compares several major keyword extraction methods, lists their advantages and disadvantages, and reports recent research progress in Taiwan. Also describes the application of a keyword extraction algorithm in an information retrieval system for relevance feedback. Preliminary analysis shows that the error rate of extracting relevant keywords is 18%, and that the precision rate is over 50%. The main disadvantage of this approach is that the extraction results depend on the retrieval results, which in turn depend on the data held by the database. Apart from collecting more data, this problem can be alleviated by the application of a thesaurus constructed by the same keyword extraction algorithm

Source

Bulletin of the Library Association of China. 1997, no.59, Dec., S.59-64

0.02881476 = product of:
  0.05762952 = sum of:
    0.021389665 = weight(_text_:use in 5784) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021389665 = score(doc=5784,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.1691581 = fieldWeight in 5784, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5784)
    0.0167351 = weight(_text_:of in 5784) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0167351 = score(doc=5784,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.25915858 = fieldWeight in 5784, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5784)
    0.0055176322 = product of:
      0.0110352645 = sum of:
        0.0110352645 = weight(_text_:on in 5784) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0110352645 = score(doc=5784,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.121501654 = fieldWeight in 5784, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5784)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.013987125 = product of:
      0.02797425 = sum of:
        0.02797425 = weight(_text_:22 in 5784) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02797425 = score(doc=5784,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1446067 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5784, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5784)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(4/8)

Abstract

This study examined Library of Congress Classification (LCC)-based class numbers assigned to a representative sample of 200 titles in 52 American library systems to determine the level of consistency within and across those systems. The results showed that under the condition that a library system has a title, the probability of that title having the same LCC-based class number across library systems is greater than 85 percent. An examination of 121 titles displaying variations in class numbers among library systems showed certain titles (for example, multi-foci titles, titles in series, bibliographies, and fiction) lend themselves to alternate class numbers. Others were assigned variant numbers either due to latitude in the schedules or for reasons that cannot be pinpointed. With increasing dependence on copy cataloging, the size of such variations may continue to decrease. As the preferred class number with its alternates represents a title more fully than just the preferred class number, this paper argues for continued use of alternates by library systems and for finding a method to link alternate class numbers to preferred class numbers for enriched subject access through local and union catalogs.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.02727397 = product of:
  0.072730586 = sum of:
    0.036153924 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4214) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036153924 = score(doc=4214,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.28943354 = fieldWeight in 4214, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4214)
    0.031059034 = weight(_text_:of in 4214) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031059034 = score(doc=4214,freq=62.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.480978 = fieldWeight in 4214, product of:
          7.8740077 = tf(freq=62.0), with freq of:
            62.0 = termFreq=62.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4214)
    0.0055176322 = product of:
      0.0110352645 = sum of:
        0.0110352645 = weight(_text_:on in 4214) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0110352645 = score(doc=4214,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.121501654 = fieldWeight in 4214, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4214)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)

Abstract

An important stage in the process or retrieval of objects from a hypertext database is the creation of a set of internodal links that are intended to represent the relationships existing between objects; this operation is often undertaken manually, just as index terms are often manually assigned to documents in a conventional retrieval system. In an earlier article (1994), the results were published of a study in which several different sets of links were inserted, each by a different person, between the paragraphs of each of a number of full-text documents. These results showed little similarity between the link-sets, a finding that was comparable with those of studies of inter-indexer consistency, which suggest that there is generally only a low level of agreement between the sets of index terms assigned to a document by different indexers. In this article, a description is provided of an investigation into the nature of the relationship existing between (i) the levels of inter-linker consistency obtaining among the group of hypertext databases used in our earlier experiments, and (ii) the levels of effectiveness of a number of searches carried out in those databases. An account is given of the implementation of the searches and of the methods used in the calculation of numerical values expressing their effectiveness. Analysis of the results of a comparison between recorded levels of consistency and those of effectiveness does not allow us to draw conclusions about the consistency - effectiveness relationship that are equivalent to those drawn in comparable studies of inter-indexer consistency

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 47(1996) no.4, S.287-300

0.027257055 = product of:
  0.07268548 = sum of:
    0.035423465 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4216) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035423465 = score(doc=4216,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.2835858 = fieldWeight in 4216, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4216)
    0.025667597 = weight(_text_:use in 4216) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025667597 = score(doc=4216,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.20298971 = fieldWeight in 4216, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4216)
    0.011594418 = weight(_text_:of in 4216) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011594418 = score(doc=4216,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.17955035 = fieldWeight in 4216, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4216)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)

Abstract

This article introduces a new concept and technique for information retrieval called 'colinked descriptors'. Borrowed from an analogous idea in bibliometrics - cocited references - colinked descriptors provide a theory and method for identifying search terms that, by hypothesis, will be superior to those entered initially by a searcher. The theory suggests a means of moving automatically from 2 or more initial search terms, to other terms that should be superior in retrieval performance to the 2 original terms. A research project designed to test this colinked descriptor hypothesis is reported. The results suggest that the approach is effective, although methodological problems in testing the idea are reported. Algorithms to generate colinked descriptors can be incorporated easily into system interfaces, front-end or pre-search systems, or help software, in any database that employs a thesaurus. The potential use of colinked descriptors is a strong argument for building richer and more complex thesauri that reflect as many legitimate links among descriptors as possible

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 47(1996) no.4, S.311-325

0.026250094 = product of:
  0.07000025 = sum of:
    0.023188837 = weight(_text_:of in 6158) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023188837 = score(doc=6158,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.3591007 = fieldWeight in 6158, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6158)
    0.013242318 = product of:
      0.026484637 = sum of:
        0.026484637 = weight(_text_:on in 6158) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026484637 = score(doc=6158,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.29160398 = fieldWeight in 6158, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6158)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.033569098 = product of:
      0.067138195 = sum of:
        0.067138195 = weight(_text_:22 in 6158) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.067138195 = score(doc=6158,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1446067 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 6158, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6158)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)

Footnote

Rez. in: College and research libraries 22(1961) no.3, S.228 (G. Jahoda)

Imprint

Cranfield : College of Aeronautics

0.025875725 = product of:
  0.069001935 = sum of:
    0.033397563 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4473) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033397563 = score(doc=4473,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.26736724 = fieldWeight in 4473, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4473)
    0.026776161 = weight(_text_:of in 4473) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026776161 = score(doc=4473,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.41465375 = fieldWeight in 4473, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4473)
    0.008828212 = product of:
      0.017656423 = sum of:
        0.017656423 = weight(_text_:on in 4473) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017656423 = score(doc=4473,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.19440265 = fieldWeight in 4473, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4473)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)

Abstract

The paper discusses the consistency of fiction indexing of library professionals and patrons based on an empirical test. Indexing was carried out with a Finnish fictional thesaurus and all of the test persons indexed the same five novels. The consistency of indexing was determined to be low; several reasons are postulated. Also an algorithm for typified indexing of fiction is given as well as some suggestions for the development of fiction information retrieval systems and content representation.

Source

Journal of documentation. 58(2002) no.1, S.49-65

0.023009984 = product of:
  0.092039935 = sum of:
    0.066795126 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2272) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.066795126 = score(doc=2272,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.5347345 = fieldWeight in 2272, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=2272)
    0.025244808 = weight(_text_:of in 2272) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025244808 = score(doc=2272,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.39093933 = fieldWeight in 2272, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=2272)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Source

Journal of documentation. 26(1970), S.55-67

0.022389447 = product of:
  0.059705194 = sum of:
    0.025048172 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1054) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025048172 = score(doc=1054,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 1054, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1054)
    0.023188837 = weight(_text_:of in 1054) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023188837 = score(doc=1054,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.3591007 = fieldWeight in 1054, product of:
          4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
            24.0 = termFreq=24.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1054)
    0.011468184 = product of:
      0.022936368 = sum of:
        0.022936368 = weight(_text_:on in 1054) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022936368 = score(doc=1054,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.25253648 = fieldWeight in 1054, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1054)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)

Abstract

This article presents the results of research into the automatic selection of Library of Congress Classification numbers based on the titles and subject headings in MARC records. The method used in this study was based on partial match retrieval techniques using various elements of new recors (i.e., those to be classified) as "queries", and a test database of classification clusters generated from previously classified MARC records. Sixty individual methods for automatic classification were tested on a set of 283 new records, using all combinations of four different partial match methods, five query types, and three representations of search terms. The results indicate that if the best method for a particular case can be determined, then up to 86% of the new records may be correctly classified. The single method with the best accuracy was able to select the correct classification for about 46% of the new records.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 43(1992), S.130-148